The catena aspect of the landscape diversity of the «Dnipro-Orilsky» natural reserve


Keywords: catena, landscape, soil, natural reserve, diversity

Abstract

In the present investigation catena approaches to assess the landscape diversity of the “Dnipro-Orilsky” natural reserve was developed. Catena which lies in the reserve embraces flood and arena biogeocoenoses. The research was performed during the 2014– 2018. The two profiles were made at the “Dnipro-Orilsky” natural reserve within which main geomorphological landscape elements are presented. There are 29 sampling polygons within these p rofiles. The soil profile description, vegetation investigation, soil and soil animals quantitative assessment was carried out in each of them. In this publication we presented the results of sampling polygons 1–4, 25 and 26. The profile 1 best reflects the traditional view of catena: it goes from the highest places of the sand terrace (arena) to the lowest place (floodplain). But relief diversity is increased by the availability of small river Protich. It floodplain provides an alternative transit and accumulation gradient. It should be noted that the main part of the main slope profile does not fully meet the transit regime, as compiled by sandy soils, which are char- acterized by high filtration capacity. Therefore, the slope profile position is largely corresponded to eluvial regimes. The accumulative part of the profile which corresponds to the floodplain of Dnipro river is significantly influenced by impact of the flood factor than the accumulative part of the profile which corresponds to the floodplain of Protich river. The soils within floodplain of Protich river have more quantity of clay. Clay soils are characterized by capillary properties, as soil salinization is common in the floodplain of Protich river. Alternative profile 2 includes Orlov valley. This element of the landscape is accumulative, but not affected by flood factor. In the biogeocenotic context catena sampling points were considered as being composed of pedocatena, phytocatena and zoocatena. The biogeocenotic approach is the chain that connects the landscape structure, the diversity of soil cover, and diversities of the plant and animal communities. The functional, spatial and temporal properties of ecosystems in landscape context can be expressed by catena. The biogeocoenosis concept is a basis for integration of the pedocatena, phytocatena and zoocatena. Catena approach is the framework for a monitoring system landscape diversity both at the level of individual component biogeocoenosis (edaphotop, phytocenosis, and zoocenosis) and biogeocoenosis level in terms of its horizontal and vertical structure and at the landscape level as a whole intercon- nected system. The traditional idea of catena as a set of eluvial, transit and accumulative positions in a complex and diverse landscape is not able to cover the most important environmental gradients modes. The complexity of the landscape is due to relief diversity and the effects of anthropogenic transformation biogeocenotic cover. Catena therefore can be seen as a multilevel hierarchical system of the biogeocenotic polygons needed to consider the diversity of physiographic conditions and anthropogenic gradients.

Author Biographies

Yuriy I. Gritsan
Dnipro State Agrarian and Economic University
Olga M. Kunakh
Oles Gonchar Dnipro National University
Julia J. Dubinina
Melitopol Institute of Ecology and Social Technologies of the Open International University of Human Development «Ukraine»
Vadim I. Kotsun
Dnipro State Agrarian and Economic University
Yuriy I. Tkalich
Dnipro State Agrarian and Economic University

References

1. Gudym, N. G. & Ganzha, D. S. (2016). Ecomorph structure of phytocenosis on the arena of the Dnipro river (within ‘Dnipro-Orelsky’ natural reserve) [Ekomorfichna struktura fitotsenoziv na areni r. Dnipro (v mezhakh pryrodnoho zapovidnyku ‘Dniprovsko-Orilskyi’)], Issues of Steppepe Forestry and Forest Reclamation of Soils [Pytannia steppeovoho lisoznavstva ta lisovoi rekultyvatsii zemel], 45, pp. 40–48. (in Ukrainian).
2. Gudym, N. G. (2015). Pelobates fuscus seasonal population dynamics of r. Dnipro arena (within Dnipro- Orelsky Natural Reserve) [Sezonna dynamika chyselnosti Pelobates fuscus na areni r. Dnipro (v mezhakh pryrodnoho zapovidnyku ‘Dniprovsko- Orilskyi’)], Problems of bioindications and ecology [Pytannia bioindykatsii ta ekolohii], 20(2), pp. 130–141. URL: http://nbuv.gov.ua/ UJRN/pbte_2015_20_2_13. (in Ukrainian).
3. Karpachevsky, L. O. (2005). Ecological soil science. Moscow, Geos (in Russian).
4. Manyuk V. V. (2005). Structure, typology, dynamics and restoring oak Dnyprovsko-Orylsky Nature Re- serve: Dis. candidate. Biol. Sciences: 03.00.16. Dnipropetrovsk, 373 p. (in Ukrainian).
4. Mikhailyuk V.I. (2001). The soils of river valleys northwest of the Black Sea ecology, genesis, taxonomy, properties, problems of use. Odessa: Astroprint, 340 p.
5. Mirkin B.M. (1974). Laws of development of vegetation of floodplains, Nauka, 144 p.
6. Nakonechny J. (2016). Soil upper valley of the river Western Bug. Scientific notes of Ternopil National Pedagogical University named Hnatyuk. Avg. Geography, 2 (41), 42–50.
7. Nakonechny Yu., Pozniak S.P. (2011). River floodplain soils of the Western Bug. Lviv: Ivan Franko LNU, 220 p.
8. Parkhomenko O. G. (2015). Holocene floodplain paedogenesis the Middle Dnipro // Scientific Journal of MP NEA Dragomanova. Seriya 4. Geography and modernity, 19 (33), 63–73.
9. Pennisi B.V., van Iersel, M. (2002). 3 ways to measure medium EC. GMPro, 22(1), 46–48.
10. Reddy K.R., Patrick, W.H. (1993). Wetland soils – oppor- tunities and challenges. Soil Sci Soc Am J., 57, 1145–1147.
11. Rinklebe J., Langer, U. (2006). Microbial diversity in three floodplain soils at the Elbe River (Germany). Soil Biol Biochem., 38, 2144–2151.
12. Rosanov B. G. (2004). Morphology of the soils. Moscow: Academic project, 432 p.
13. Scoggins H. L., van Iersel M. W. (2006). In situ probes for measurement of EC of soilless substrates: effects of temperature and substrate moisture content. HortScience, 41, 210–214.
14. Skvortsova E. B., Abrosimov K.N., Romanenko K.A. (2015). Profile changes of the micromorphomet- ric indicators of the pores in the zonal soils of the European part of Russia. Bulletin of V.V. Do- kuchaev Soil Science Institute. 78, 42–58.
15. Smagin A. V. (2012). Theory and practice of designing soil. Moscow: Moscow University Press, 542 p.
16. Stolt M.H., Genthner M.H., Daniels W.L., Groover V.A. (2001). Spatial variability in Palustrine Wetlands. Soil Sci Soc Am J. 65, 527–535.
17. Sumarokov, O.M., Kunah, O.M. & Zhukov O.V. (2018). Soil-dwelling invertebrates in Dniprovsko- Orelsky Nature Reserve Dataset ID #3976. In: UkrBIN: Ukrainian Biodiversity Information Network [public project & web application]. UkrBIN, Database on Biodiversity Information. Available from: http://www.ukrbin.com Accessed: Date [e.g. September 14, 2018]
18. Vadyunina A.F., Korchagina Z. A. (1986). Methods of studying the physical properties of soil. Agropromizdat, 416 p.
19. Wälder K., Wälder O., Rinklebe J., Menz J. (2008). Esti- mation of soil properties with geostatistical meth- ods in floodplains. Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science. 54 (3), 275–295.
20. Zhukov, A., Gadorozhnaya, G. (2016). Spatial heterogene- ity of mechanical impedance of a typical cherno- zem: the ecological approach. Ekológia (Bratisla- va). 35, 263–278. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ eko-2016-0021
21. Zhukov, A.V., Zadorozhnaya, G.A. 2016. Spatio-temporal dynamics of the penetration resistance of recultivated soils formed after open cast mining. Visnyk of Dnipropetrovsk University. Biology, ecology. 24(2), 324–331. DOI: 10.15421/011642
22. Zhukov O., Kunah O., Dubinina Y., & Novikova V. (2018). The role of edaphic and vegetation factors in structuring beta diversity of the soil macrofauna community of the Dnipro river arena terrace. Ekológia (Bratislava), 37, 3, 301–327. DOI:10.2478/eko-2018-0023
23. Zhukov O., Kunah O., Dubinina Y., & Novikova V. (2018). The role of edaphic, vegetational and spatial fac- tors in structuring soil animal communities in a floodplain forest of the Dnipro river. Folia Oeco- logica, 45, 8–23. doi: 10.2478/foecol-2018-0002
24. Zhukov, O.V., Pisarenko, P.V., Kunah, O.M., & Dichenko, O.J. (2015). Role of landscape diversity in dynamics of abundance of sugar beet pests population in Poltava region. Visnyk of Dnipropetrovsk University. Biology, ecology, 23, 1, 21–27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15421/011504
25. Zhukov, A. V., Gudym, N. G., & Dubinina, Y. Y. (2017). Soil mesofauna of the meadow community in the floodplain of the Protich river (the Nature Reserve “Dnipro-Orilsky”). The Kharkov Entomol. Soc. Gaz., XXV (2), 22–39.
26. Zhukov, A.V., Andrusevich, K.V., Lapko, K. V., & Sirotina, V. O. (2015). Geostatistical estimation of soil aggregate structure as a composite variable. Biological Bulletin, 3, 101–121. http://dx.doi. org/10.7905/bbmspu.v5i3.989
27. Zhukov, A.V., Kunah, O.N., Novikova, V.A., & Ganzha, D.S. (2016). Phytoindication estimation of soil mesopedobionts communities catena and their ecomorphic organization. Biological Bulletin of Bogdan Chmelnitskiy Melitopol State Pedagogical University, 6 (3), 91–117. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15421/201676
28. Zhukov, O.V. (2015). Influence of usual and dual wheels on soil penetration resistance: the GIS-approach. Bi- ological Bulletin Of Bogdan Chmelnitskiy Meli- topol State Pedagogical University. 3, 73–100. DOI: 10.7905/bbmspu.v5i3.988
29. Zhukov, O.V., & Gubanova, N.L. (2015). Dynamic stabil- ity of communities of amphibians in short-term- floodedforest ecosystems. Visnyk of Dnipro- petrovsk University. Biology, ecology, 23 (2), 161–171. doi:10.15421/011523
30. Zhukov, O.V., Kunah, O. M., Dubinina, Y.Y., & Ganzha, D. S. (2017). Diversity and phytoindication ability of plant community. Ukrainian Journal of Ecology. 7(4), 81–99. doi:10.15421/2017_90
31. Zhukov, O.V., Kunah, O.N., & Novikova, V.A. (2016). The functional organisation of the mesopedobi- onts community of sod pinewood soils on arena of the river Dnepr. Visnyk of Dnipropetrovsk University. Biology, ecology. 24(1), 26–39. doi:10.15421/011604
Published
2019-10-05